Evaluation of expressed self-contempt in psychotherapy: an exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-contempt may be a frequent but overlooked clinical phenomenon, associated with a number of psychological problems such as increased sadness and shame. It was shown that self-contempt interferes with productive emotional processing and the quality of therapeutic alliance. This study aims to develop a reliable measure of expressed self-contempt given that a previous three-point assessment may be too restrictive in range, resulting in non-significant results. Thus, the present study applied an extended observer-rated scale to different participant groups in different contexts. This explorative phase focuses on a sample of N = 61 participants divided into three groups, including n = 20 controls, n = 21 patients with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorderand n = 20 patients with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Levels of self-contempt are compared between the groups and are associated with symptom indicators. Reliability of the instrument is analysed using inter-rater reliability and internal consistency, which are sufficient. The level of expressed self-contempt is not related to symptom intensity. Patients with borderline personality disorder do not express more self-contempt than the other groups. While further research should establish full validity of the scale, reliability is satisfactory and the use of the scale can be recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".